Friedmometer: Map on the Damn Table

The Friedmometer tracks left-of-center conventional wisdom about the state of peace in the land between the river and the sea through the eyes of Thomas Friedman.

When last we weighed in, Friedman was mostly blaming Israel for the current stagnancy of the peace process. His column today on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict by no means exculpates or excuses Israel, but it does focus almost exclusively on the need for Palestinians to take meaningful action. Emphasis on meaningful: nonviolent resistance is all well and good, Friedman argues, as long as it is coupled with a realistic plan—Friedman literally wants maps cited—for dividing the land on the basis of the pre-1967 lines, with land swaps.

Unabated, disruptive Palestinian civil disobedience in the West Bank, coupled with a map delineating a deal most Israelis would buy, is precisely what would make Israelis feel morally insecure but strategically secure and revive the Israeli peace camp. It is the only Palestinian strategy Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu fears, but it is one that he is sure Palestinians would never adopt. He thinks it’s not in their culture. Will they surprise him?

WAIT, WHY DO I HAVE TO PAY TO COMMENT?
Tablet is committed to bringing you the best, smartest, most enlightening and entertaining reporting and writing on Jewish life, all free of charge. We take pride in our community of readers, and are thrilled that you choose to engage with us in a way that is both thoughtful and thought-provoking. But the Internet, for all of its wonders, poses challenges to civilized and constructive discussion, allowing vocal—and, often, anonymous—minorities to drag it down with invective (and worse). Starting today, then, we are asking people who'd like to post comments on the site to pay a nominal fee—less a paywall than a gesture of your own commitment to the cause of great conversation. All proceeds go to helping us bring you the ambitious journalism that brought you here in the first place.

I NEED TO BE HEARD! BUT I DONT WANT TO PAY.
Readers can still interact with us free of charge via Facebook, Twitter, and our other social media channels, or write to us at letters@tabletmag.com. Each week, we’ll select the best letters and publish them in a new letters to the editor feature on the Scroll.

We hope this new largely symbolic measure will help us create a more pleasant and cultivated environment for all of our readers, and, as always, we thank you deeply for your support.

Despite Friedman’s Jewish heritage, his opposition to a Jewish state of Israel is regularly reflected in his criticism of Israelis, their political leaders and Israeli positions – so it is indeed a great surprise for him to focus on Palestinians and their need to take meaningful action.

Unfortunately, he does not call for Palestinian recognition of Israel as a Jewish State, nor for the ending Palestinian anti-Semitism and violence.

The “two-state solution” is actually live and well…, if we only realized that it has been accomplished, legally, long ago, and all that needs to be done at this stage is to tinker with it a bit, to fix it here and there and to ensure that it is governed peacefully and properly.

“Palestine” – a territory, never a nationality or a state of course – was partitioned, legally, by the international community long ago. It was in 1921 that 77% of the territory was handed over to the Arabs. Located east of the Jordan River, the Arabs subsequently renamed their part of the territory, Jordan, since “Palestine” is not an Arab term.

It was in 1922 that the rest, 23% of “Palestine”, was assigned legally to the Jews. Located between the Jordan River and the Med. Sea, the Jews, subsequently renamed their smaller part of “Palestine” Israel, since “Palestine is neither a Jewish term.

It was on the basis of this international law, including the 1921/22 partition of “Palestine” that the United Nations Security Council resolved in 1967 to bring about an accommodation of peaceful coexistence between Arab and Jew, between the Muslim-Arab world and the independent nation-state of the Jewish people, Israel. UN Security Council Resolution, 242, passed unanimously and subsequently accepted by all parties to the conflict, and to this day has been serving as the single basis for the peace process. Shouldn’t the parties simply adhere to it?

242, it should be noted, calls upon Israel to retreat the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) from “territories” – not from “the” territories or from “all” territories, mind you!! – captured during the defensive Six-Day War, and to do so to “secure and recognized boundaries” rather than to any particular designated line. Israel, of course, has fulfilled this requirement of 242 decades ago.

242, however, contrary to the views of some, doesn’t call for the setting up of an additional state between the Jordan River and the Med. Sea; an act that would be contrary to international law of course.

Indeed, 242 doesn’t even make use of concepts such as “Palestinians” or “Palestine”, the name of a territory that ceased to exist once, legally, “Palestine” was partitioned.

It is time peace-loving people stood by international law and defended it. And, until it is fully implemented, such people should respect the September 1995 Interim Agreement between Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), reached and signed by the parties, that governs the relationships between Arabs and Jews in that part of former “Palestine” that was assigned in 1922 to be “the national home for the Jewish people”.

P.S. The importance of us adhering to international law, as is, is not only the right thing to do, it is also the smart one. In essence, the Muslim-Arabs – not the Christian-Arabs or the Druze-Arabs, mind you!! – for religious reasons, have never and will never accept Israel’s right to be, to exist as the independent nation-state of the Jewish people on ANY parcel of land between the Jordan River and the Med. Sea. And, since this is a fundamental requirement of Israel, and rightly so, the next best thing is adherence to international law. Even the Muslims, when international law is “imposed” on them, can see this an “excuse” to learn to live peacefully along-side an independent nation-state of the Jewish people. This is incidentally the case with Egypt and with Jordan, neither one of which actually maintains a state of peace with Israel. They, rather, reached an accommodation of peaceful coexistence and a cease fire with Israel. But for that to happen, the international community must assert itself and demand of the Muslim-Arabs to live by international law.

Name (required)Email (required, will not be published)Website (optional)

Message

2000

Your comment may be no longer than 2,000 characters, approximately 400 words. HTML tags are not permitted, nor are more than two URLs per comment. We reserve the right to delete inappropriate comments.